tv Moyers Company PBS October 28, 2013 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT
>> this week on "moyers & company" -- that deal between the justice department and jpmorgan chase requires a second look. >> if the justice department were being tough on wall street, they would be talking about bringing criminal cases against individuals who helped to perpetrate this immense crisis. >> and historian peter dreier reveals the radical message of dr. seuss. >> stand up to arbitrary authority and take back your own life and be a fighter for justice and for your own integrity. >> announcer: funding is provided by -- carnegie corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of
philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the kohlberg foundation. independent production fund, with support from the partridge foundation, a john and polly guth charitable fund. the clements foundation. park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. the bernard and audre rapoport foundation. the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org. anne gumowitz. the betsy and jesse fink foundation. the hkh foundation. barbara g. fleischman. and by our sole corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing customized individual and group retirement products. that's why we're your retirement company.
>> welcome. you couldn't miss it here in manhattan the other day -- the big, bold headline across the front page of the tabloid "new york post" screaming one of those sick, slick lies that are a trademark of rupert murdoch's right wing media empire. there was uncle sam, brandishing a revolver and wearing a burglar's mask. "uncle scam," the headline shouted. "u.s. robs bank of $13 billion." say what? that, my friends, is pure whitewash, and murdoch's minions know it. that $13 billion is the settlement the country's biggest bank is negotiating with the government to settle its own rip-off of american home owners and investors -- those shady practices that five years ago helped trigger the financial meltdown, including manipulating mortgages and sending millions of americans into bankruptcy or foreclosure. and this isn't the only scandal
jpmorgan chase is juggling. a $6 billion settlement with institutional investors is in the works and criminal charges may still be filed in california. the bank is under investigation on so many fronts it's hard to keep them sorted out, everything from the deceptive sales in its credit card unit to bernie madoff's ponzi scheme to the criminal manipulation of energy markets and the bribing of chinese officials. nor is jpmorgan chase the only culprit under scrutiny. bank of america was found guilty just this week of civil fraud, and eight other banks are being investigated by the government for mortgage fraud. no wonder wall street's camp followers at "fox news," "the wall street journal," cnbc and other cheerleaders have ganged up to whitewash the banks. this could be the biggest egg yet across the smug face of unfettered, unchecked, unaccountable capitalism. let's sort this out with someone who covers wall street without
fear, favor or flaming headlines. gretchen morgenson has been called "the most important financial journalist of her generation." she won the pulitzer prize for her tough journalism and her "fair game" column for "the new york times" combines old fashioned, shoe leather reporting with hard-won knowledge to help the rest of us understand finance both high and low. i recommend her most recent book, written with joshua rosner, "reckless endangerment." welcome back. >> thank you so much, bill. >> is the justice department finally getting tough on the banks? >> i find it hard to use this $13 billion settlement number that jpmorgan chase is entertaining as evidence of the justice department being tough on wall street. if the justice department were being tough on wall street, they would be bringing criminal cases. they would not be talking about
settlements. they would be talking about bringing criminal cases against individuals who helped to perpetrate this immense crisis. so, to say that $13 billion is finally the justice department's getting religion, i'm just not a buyer of that. $13 billion sounds like a lot of money, but to jpmorgan chase who over the past five years has made $75 billion, that net income, he doesn't want to part with it, believe me, but it's not a huge number. particularly if you were to look at what the cents on the dollar is of what they're paying to get out of these liabilities. you know, people who lost money in these mortgages, the people who lost their homes are, you know, the numbers are far larger than $13 billion. this is a number that has been struck as part of a deal that,
you know, may or may not be agreeable to most of the parties at the table. but it's not a killer number. >> the wall street journal and others are saying that what the government is doing is a witch hunt. they're shaking down jpmorgan. >> there's no doubt that there was wrongdoing. they wouldn't be at the table negotiating if there was no wrongdoing. and it's just a matter of what price each party is willing to pay or receive. so, a shakedown to me would seem that jpmorgan was innocent of any of the accusations. and we know that not to be true because of what has come out in the private litigation, because of what we've seen in the courts so far. >> defenders of jpmorgan and of jamie dimon will say there were no criminal cases because there were no crimes. these guys were bending the rules just a little bit. that's the way the game goes. >> eric holder in fact has said
that. you know, their behavior was amoral, their behavior as ugly, you know, but perhaps it wasn't criminal. well, i don't know about you, bill, but i don't really have the confidence that the justice department did a sufficient investigation to be able to determine whether it was criminal behavior. do you feel certain that they did the, you know, job that was needed to say, "look, we have gone through all these many institutions that hurt so many people, that brought the economy to its knees, and we've determined through our thorough investigation that there were no crimes," i don't think there was a thorough investigation. >> well, you wrote the other day that the federal judges seem to be losing patience with the banks. how so? >> there were a couple of cases that i highlighted because i thought it did show a new direction, a new sort of aggressiveness. you know, a lot of these judges -- bankruptcy judges in particular who have to see the bank's
treatment of homeowners who've filed personal bankruptcy, they seem to really be getting fed up with some of the tactics that these -- the hardball tactics that the bank's litigants, you know, are doing in their courtroom. they've had to witness so many cases of banks running roughshod over borrowers whether it's by the banks not producing the documentation that proves that they own the note underlying the property, whether they produced erroneous figures about what the borrower owed. i mean, they have just seen chapter and verse over the last five years of really bad behavior by these banks. and i think it's finally getting to them where they're saying, "look, we used to be sort of a believer or we would take the creditor's point of view. now we're starting to wonder about that and really take the borrower's side." >> bank of america was found guilty this week of civil fraud. is it conceivable to you that
jamie dimon of jpmorgan could be negotiating with the justice department because he doesn't want to go to a trial by jury in which the bank would be found guilty? >> i don't think any financial institution, bill, wants to go before a jury nowadays. i'm sure you meet people every day as i hear from them every day about how upset they are, disturbed they are by what they've seen in their own, you know, lives, what the banks have done. so, i do believe that no financial institution wants to have any of this aired before a jury. >> i actually talked to a man on the street this morning on, it was a man in the subway and he said to me, "you know, i try to follow this, but it's so complicated. these issues are so arcane, the eyes glaze over." what would you say to him about why he should keep trying to pay attention? what are the stakes for people like that? >> i think what this really underscores is two things.
one is that we are still in a situation where these large financial institutions are just too big to manage and they are still threatening the populace. we have really not fixed "too big to fail." and so, until we do, until these institutions can no longer threaten the taxpayer with a possible bailout, then that's something that people really need to watch and care about. but the other thing that i think this underscores is the degree to which these large financial institutions lost their way in the years leading up to the crisis. you know, finance at its best should be positive, it should be something that helps people. whether it's helping companies hire more workers to produce, you know, something that people want to buy, whether it's helping homeowners to get a home and to keep the home, you know, not to have an exploding interest rate that they can't
afford. constructive finance, right. what we saw and what this $13 billion also indicates is the destructive nature of finance in the early 2000s and continuing. i mean, the idea of putting together a mortgage security that was, you know, designed to collapse in pieces, in a heap, you know, is just a new low in my view. it is not constructive, that's not constructive finance. >> we had goldman sachs and others who were playing their own customers off -- >> correct. >> -- against each other, putting the interests of the institution, the executives and the managers ahead of their clients. >> i call it "me-first"-ism. i mean, and you see it just all over the place. so, i think that's what we really need to take away from this. and you know, people can dispute whether $13 billion is enough or whether jpmorgan and jamie dimon should feel -- that we should feel sorry for
them because they have to pay this amount. by the way, the shareholders are paying it, not jamie dimon. nobody is paying for it who actually, on the scene of these particular bad acts, remember. so, instead of focusing on the number, whether it's fair, whether the government is picking on jpmorgan, i think we just want to step back and say, "look, this is an indication of what went wrong, how it went off the rails. and we can't let it happen again." >> it strikes some people that jpmorgan, jamie dimon, the board, the directors, the top executives are using other people's money, the shareholders' money to buy a get out of jail free pass or to hide their own misconduct. >> well, it certainly is true that none of top executives are paying the price for any of these mortgage infractions. they certainly weren't paying the price for the $6 billion loss in the so-called london
whale episode. in that episode there was manipulation of the market by the traders at jpmorgan to try to, you know, help their position because it was going so wrong for them. now, jamie dimon didn't take a bonus last year, and that was, you know, talked about as, you know, punishment for not having managed properly this $6 billion problem. but you know, it really does not become accountable, you're not accountable if you don't have to pay the price for some of this behavior. >> do you find it remarkable, jamie dimon asking for a personal meeting with the attorney general eric holder to decide in private on a penalty? michael hirsh in the "national journal" calls it a personal summit meeting. and he goes on to say that these negotiations "would only have
been possible if the government of the united states is itself afraid of disturbing the operations of the bank," that as you have said, the attorney general himself thinks jpmorgan is indeed too big to fail. >> it seems unusual to me. and it does smack of favoritism, special treatment. it certainly was unusual i would say for eric holder, the attorney general of the united states of america to have a personal meeting with someone that his office is negotiating a settlement with. that raised eyebrows with me. i know i wouldn't be able to get that meeting if i asked. >> no -- >> and if i implored -- no. so, i mean, i think it really sends a signal also which is disturbing that, you know, again two sets of rules in america, there's one set for the people who are in positions of power, certainly in the financial world one set of rules perhaps for them, one set for the rest of us.
you know, i really don't understand why eric holder could, you know, would not have decided that it was the optics just didn't look that good for him to meet with jamie dimon. but maybe there's something behind it that i don't know. >> well, as you know settlements by their very nature benefit both parties to some degree. what do you think jpmorgan is getting out of this? >> well, they get this pr out there that, you know, this is a huge number and that they're beleaguered, you know, bank. but what they do get out of it in some cases is tax deductibility. certain aspects of settlements are tax deductible. and they can use that as a negotiating chip for the entire settlement if the justice department allows it. so, we're not clear yet on how much of this will be tax deductible. that would certainly be a benefit to jpmorgan chase. and it would mean that the taxpayers are once again subsidizing this very profitable
large institution. also there's a sense that, you know, maybe we can put this behind us, we've paid the freight, we are -- we've been held accountable. but again the problem with that argument is that it is the shareholders who are being held accountable, paying the price, not the actual perpetrators. >> what i hear you saying is that the wrongdoing at jpmorgan, jamie dimon's own failure to manage the offenses created by other executives and by traders and all of that, all of that cost or much of that cost is being passed down to taxpayers and shareholders? >> yes, that's correct. >> that doesn't seem fair. >> well, that's our system unfortunately. now, the justice department can say, "no, we will not allow any of this to be tax deductible." the tax rules do require that any kind of remuneration to say investors who were hurt in their mortgage securities or borrowers
who are being given some sort of dispensation for the maybe abusive tactics of the bank, that will automatically be tax deductible. so, there is some element of it that, you know, is off limits, it really must. but i think that when you start to do the math and you see who's actually paying the price, it really is making the wrong people pay. >> as you know, dimon has his defenders, and they're all giving him a pass because as someone said, the company is a cash-generating machine. you can get away with these things as long as you're producing a big profit, right? >> well, that's typically been the answer. and it explains away multiple sins, as you know, bill, such as overly-paid chief executive officers. as long as the company is making money, the millions that they take home every year doesn't really bother people. that is there is something wrong with that argument.
also there's a lot of defenders saying, "look, a lot of this $13 billion was the result of jamie dimon's purchase of washington mutual in the heat of the crisis, 2008, september, or/and its purchase of bear stearns, march 2008." and so, really it's not the bad behavior of jpmorgan, it's that he took on the liabilities of these two rogue enterprises, and so, now he's paying the price. but he received a tremendous amount, number of benefits by acquiring both of these companies in essentially a fire sale. i think they had a $2 billion benefit immediately from the purchase of wamu. so, and in the purchase of bear stearns, they got a beautiful almost brand-new building on madison avenue. so, you know, i don't think that you can simply say that because much of the $13 billion has to do with these two enterprises
that mr. dimon purchased in the fire sale that that means that it's really not a net benefit for him. >> he didn't do it as charity, he did it because he calculated it would be a very good business investment? >> correct, correct. >> so, help my audience understand why the directors and the managers don't have to cough up. >> you know, it's what should we call it, the $64 trillion question? you know, you have shareholders who are accepting the status quo with, you know, they're fine with it. you can't have change until you have the owners start to pick up the pitchforks and say, "i am not going to stand for this anymore. someone has to be held accountable." we haven't seen that yet. and so, the question is why? well, is it because you have these large institutions such as the mutual fund organizations that don't want to rock the boat? it's my money, it's your money
that they're managing. i might like them to rock the boat, but they choose not to, perhaps, because of their financial relationships with the institutions whose shares they own on my behalf. so, there are many questions as to why shareholders have been so complacent about these directors. it's a real dysfunctional system all around. and until shareholders start to take action and, you know, say, "look, we want accountability in the boardroom," and until you have people inside these organizations standing up and saying, "you know, i would rather be in a business that provides constructive finance for people rather than saying, "ooh, look at the profits in this kind of, you know, creepy thing that we could construct and sell to people without them knowing it,'" until you have people on the inside who take that issue and say, "i want to be in the business of helping
people, not hurting them," how is it going to change? >> gretchen morgenson, thank you very much for joining me. >> oh, always a pleasure, bill. >> the wicked machinations of capitalism and finance we just talked about with gretchen morgenson can be overwhelming to everyday citizens struggling to make ends meet. against a colossus like wall street, even committed citizen activists fighting in the trenches for democracy are tempted to throw up their hands and say, "i surrender. what's the use?" but there is something to the old saw that the answer to organized money is organized people. outraged citizens who press against the fault lines of a corrupt system until it cracks opens -- reminding us of what's possible. now rarely does that happen as a nationwide mass movement, but it
takes place here and there and often enough to remind us of our capacity for action. this isn't wishful thinking. it's a careful reading of the past. you can see it for yourself in peter dreier's most recent book, "the 100 greatest americans of the 20thcentury: a social justice hall of fame. peter dreier teaches at occidental college in los angeles, where he's a distinguished professor of politics and chair of the school's department of urban and environmental policy, he imbues his students with stories of organizers, activists, writers, artists and, yes, politicians who changed history. peter dreier, welcome. >> thank you, bill. it's great to be here. >> so, you're sitting out there in california on the west coast, 3,000 miles from what is happening in washington. what are you thinking? >> i'm thinking this is an incredible turning point in american history right now. for the last 30 years wall street and big business have
basically put, invested, a lot of money in the right wing, in the far right, in the tea party, in the religious right. and they've sown the seeds of their own destruction. wall street and big business right now has spawned a movement that's out of control, and they can't control the tea party anymore. they can't control the right wing forces in the country. and so, a lot of americans are thinking that big business is in control of this, but they're not. >> so, there've been some lobbyists from big business, ceos from wall street down trying to talk sense to the republican leadership and even trying to reach the tea party and say, "wait a minute. you can't destroy the good faith and credit of the united states." >> right, exactly. and this is a moment similar to the depression where a lot of big business was against roosevelt, but they didn't want america to, like, stop working. and this is a moment where big business is vulnerable. all the polls show that americans think that business has too much political power, the rich don't pay enough taxes, the government needs to protect us from predatory banks and from
polluting corporations. americans are now realizing more than ever that we need to go in a new direction. and i think that's lots of evidence all over the country, maybe not in washington right now, but all over the country there's evidence of people that are fighting back against big business and against the right. and that's going to coalesce. and eventually we're going to see changes in washington. but it's going to take a while because those things trickle up from the bottom, they don't happen from the top down. >> but if you talk to everyday members of the tea party, you will hear them express their concern for america, their anguish over what's happening to the middle class, their anger over corporate power in politics over both their party and the democratic party. >> i think there's a big difference between the koch brothers and jim demint and ted cruz and the leaders and the funders of the tea party and most of the ordinary people who
are just frustrated with the way america's going and they don't quite know what to do. i think the tea party members, not the hardcore activists, but the people that tell pollsters that they sympathize with the tea party, they want a good home, they want a good job. they are in favor of social security. they want the government to protect them from the insecurities of old age. but they're confused and some of them are racists and some of them are right wing, but most of them are just ordinary americans feeling a lot of pain. but the grassroots tea party really wouldn't have existed without the funding from people like the koch brothers and the free media propaganda publicity from "fox news." >> don't you concede though that there are many people, conservatives and members of the tea party and they're not always one and the same, who really think government does more harm than good? >> you know, ronald reagan was the one that said that government's the problem, not the solution.
and a lot of people still believe that. but when you -- so, ideologically many people will say that. but when you say -- do you think the government should provide social security, they'll say yes. do you think the government should provide medicare? yes. would you like your children to have government sponsored college tuition scholarships? they say yes. do you want the government to protect your family from unsafe pollution and water and consumer products and food and medicine? they say yes. so, when you ask people what should government do? they are progressive. when you ask them sort of the big ideological question, is big government a good thing? they'll say no. but what people have to run on when they run for office is not just the ideology of being for or against government. what do you want government to do? and there the american people are in line with the long line of progressives from hiram johnson to eugene debs to franklin roosevelt to martin luther king. >> my friend, the journalist david sirota, who writes for
"salon," said the other day that the government shutdown and the budget fights are huge ideological victories for the conservative movement because they have "yanked the political discourse even farther to the right." do you agree with that? >> no, i don't agree with that at all. i think that what's happened in this shutdown is that people realized how much they need government. i think the american people are feeling a lot of pain right now. and it's only that something like with 9/11 happens and the first responders become the heroes of america that people realize you really need government, not just in an emergency but on every day basis. people understand more than ever how important it is that -- the role that government plays in their daily lives. it's not that they're ideologically in favor of big government, but they realize that this shutdown has shut down america. the tea party was responsible for $10 billion a week loss of
our economy. and that's untenable. and the corporate class, the wall street class doesn't know what to do about that because they've depended on the republican party to be their allies. and now this unholy alliance between wall street, the chamber of commerce, the tea party and the religious right is imploding right in front of us. >> there's so many ironies here. you know, there are also polls showing that the progressive agenda, your agenda of higher taxes on the rich, stronger regulation of wall street and policies to combat economic inequality, these have broad public support. but at the same time these polls show only meager, meager public support for the tea party. yet look who's getting all the attention. >> well, that's a big problem. you know, all over america right now there are people fighting back on the grassroots level. and it's quite amazing how little media attention they get. for example, in richmond, california, there's a small city of 100,000 people, a progressive mayor and city council. and a community organizing group called acce is taking on wall
street directly. in that city over half of the homeowners are underwater, their mortgages cost more than their homes are worth this is wall street's predatory practices crashing the economy. this has happened all over america. there are over 10 million american homeowners that are underwater. and in richmond, california, the mayor and the community are fighting back and saying, "we're not going to take this anymore." they've tried to get wall street banks to rewrite their mortgages so they can stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure. and when wall street wouldn't do that, the city council said to the banks, "we're going to take these mortgages by eminent domain. we're going to buy them from you. if you don't want to sell them to us, we'll do it by eminent domain. and we're going to sell them back to the homeowners for about half the price, for the current market value." and of course wall street, the wells fargo bank and other banks, have sued the city. the federal judge threw out the suit. and they're going to win, the city of richmond is going to take on wall street and they're going to win. and once they do, that idea is
going to spread throughout the whole country. there are dozens of cities ready to pounce and to do the same thing. and wall street is frightened. and in general wall street is frightened because they know the american people have had enough. and we're not talking occupy wall street, we're not talking about people sitting in and taking over the banks by civil disobedience. we're talking about using the electoral politics in one small city, in richmond, to take on wall street. and this is going to spread throughout the country. >> tell me about that mayor. >> a woman named gayle mclaughlin, who's a former schoolteacher, she's the mayor of this city. they started off -- it's a city dominated by chevron oil, the biggest refinery and it's the biggest employer in town. and mayor mclaughlin and a community organizing group called acce and the service employees union have mobilized the homeowners in that city to go before the city council and to demand that the city do something.g. and the mayor is responding.
she's a leader in this movement. and she knows that wall street is looking at her as, like, enemy number one. and she's willing to take the heat because she's on the right side of history. >> earlier this month, you wrote about the confrontation between a couple of activists on this and two plutocrats at the beverly hilton hotel in los angeles. here they were -- laurence fink of blackrock earned $75 million last year, he's the highest paid financial services ceo in the country. blackrock is the world's largest money manager with $3.6 trillion in assets. william gross of pimco has a personal net worth of $2.2 billion. he made about $200 million in 2011. and both fink and gross are on the forbes list of "the world's most powerful people." what happened? >> well, they were talking to a group of ucla business school students and alumni about the state of wall street and the state of the financial situation in this country. and two --
a couple of activists from acce, the community organizing group, and the service employees union they infiltrated the meeting and they asked the ceos of pimco and of blackrock. >> why are you suing the city of richmond instead of negotiating? >> now both of us, right? perhaps you would like to answer. >> and they kind of admitted that things are tough for working people in california and all over the country. >> we are acting as a fiduciary on behave of our client. this is not our money and if we did not stand for our clients rights in this, and if we did not stand for this suit, we would not be a fiduciary for our clients. >> mary kay henry, the president of seiu issued a statement and said, you're not representing our shareholders. you're not representing the pension funds of seiu workers. we want you to negotiate to save those homeowners in richmond. they looked incredibly foolish. they looked incredibly selfish and self-serving.
and i think that exposed them for what they are. they must know somewhere in their core that they're on the wrong side of history, that they should not be kicking people out of their homes who've been working hard and paying their mortgages. >> what does that tell you? that they -- >> it tells you that all over the country there are people willing to stand up to these wall street titans and raise the fundamental questions of democracy. you know, you are making a huge fortune on the backs of working people. profits are going up and wages are going down. there's a recession for the majority of the american people and there's luxury and prosperity for the top one hundredth of one percent of which these two guys are members. and all over the country in north carolina every monday, moral monday, in florida the group called the dream defenders took over the governor's office. there are students all over the country fighting the fossil fuel industry by demanding that their
colleges divest from these -- from exxon oil and other major fossil fuel companies that are causing global warming. and all over the country there are people who are taking to the streets, taking to the polls and saying, "we've had enough of wall street and big business and the tea party and the religious right. and we're going to take the country back." and i know that rhetoric is similar to what the tea party says. but you know, but this is about wall street and big business really being vulnerable for the first time probably in 30 years. >> i have to press you on that peter, because republicans are ruled as you know by the radicals in their party with enough votes in the house in particular to protect massive tax breaks for the wealthy, to jeopardize medicare and social security, to attack women's rights, to reduce food stamps, to push measures that degrade the environment. and yet, the democrats cannot move their agenda. >> well, remember the debate
over the health care bill, what is now called obama care. the overwhelming majority of the democrats in both the house and the senate wanted a public option. they wanted some kind of medicare for all. and it was only a handful of democrats, the corporate democrats led by max baucus. >> from montana. >> yes. >> who was chairman of the banking and finance committee. >> that's right. so, a small group of democrats, the corporate democrats were able to thwart the public will and have a public option. so, i don't think you can blame the entire democratic party. it is true that big business has an important role to play in the democratic party. and i think that's why we got robert rubin and we got tim geithner and we got the kinds of people that have. >> clinton democrats? >> the clinton democrats. and i think that's why obama picked, i think, the wrong people to be his financial advisors when he came into office. >> but there are with all due respect very few signs of
leadership on a progressive agenda in congress, in washington for workers, for consumers or the environment. the congressional progressive caucus 76 members, they put forth an ambitious "back to work" public investment agenda in education, infrastructure which is in terrible shape in this country, renewable energy. and it was categorically ignored. yet the 90 tea party members in the house can shut down the government? >> well, you know, the desire of the progressive movement is for the democrats to act more like a party, to act more like a movement. and there are enough democrats in both houses of the congress to do that, but they need to be more disciplined. and also we need to realize that change doesn't happen from inside washington. it happens from the grassroots and then changes washington. >> but peter -- >> in congress. >> almost every other guest on this show says the same thing you did, that it takes time, it takes patience -- and it has to come starting with roosevelt, from the grassroots
up. but we all know there's been great progress in this country on some cultural issues, particularly on gay marriage and equality for gays, but not much movement on the very issues that the people you describe are agitating about out there, environmental issues, income equality, racial justice, gun control, women's rights. something's not working. >> there is enormous amount of movement out there. wendy davis, a state senator from texas, stood up -- in a filibuster and became a cultural hero in texas. and she -- >> yes, but the next week the state legislature, controlled by republicans, went on and did what they would've done if she hadn't filibustered. they lost anyway despite her hero -- admittedly heroic stand and national attention, she still lost -- >> but that's how movements happen, bill. bill, they don't happen overnight. they happen -- >> but in the meantime politics, electoral politics are the frustrating barrier to the change you're describing. >> i agree. and it's going to take a while
for that breakthrough to happen. but i think we're seeing here in new york, the bastion of wall street, the bastion of rudy giuliani and michael bloomberg, who presided over 20 years of widening inequality, gentrification, and the destruction of the middle class in new york, you now have a champion of working people, bill de blasio who's going to be the next mayor of new york. and things like that are happening in other states. in california, governor brown passed -- just signed a bill to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour -- >> but didn't he oppose that last year? >> he wouldn't do it a year ago, but he's doing it now. why? because he's responding to the strikes of the fast food workers, to the organizing of the wal-mart workers, to the public opinion polls that show that an overwhelming majority of americans believe that if you work full time, you should not live in poverty, that the minimum wage still leaves you desperately below the poverty line. and governor brown realized that. he also recently signed a bill to give driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, to
provide a "domestic workers' bill of rights" to match new york's domestic workers bill of rights. there are legislative changes that are happening all over the country that are the result of these movements. think about if this were january of 1960 and i said to you, "bill, there's going to be a new civil rights movement mostly among young people." you'd probably think like many people thought, i was crazy. but yet on february 1st, 1960 four college students in north carolina took over the woolworth's in greensboro, north carolina, and spawned a movement that spread throughout the south, created an organization called sncc, the student nonviolent coordinating committee, which engaged in freedom rides and civil rights protests and voter registration and changed our country forever. and yet no one predicted that. no one thought that was about to happen. history happens behind our backs sometimes and changed elections and electoral politics and what happens in washington as well as all over the country.
>> and in 1964 after lyndon johnson defeated barry goldwater by the largest plurality on american political history, nobody thought that the conservatives, the right wing would be running the country for the next 30 years or gaining in power as they did. can't your optimism blindside you? you know, if i thought that i was being pollyannaish i wouldn't be able to get up in the morning because, you know, why live in a world where things are going downhill? but if you look at the long view, all change happens two steps forward, one step backward, two steps forward, you know. so, when you're in that backward moment, right, everything looks bleak, everything looks hopeless, right. in 1911, victor berger, a socialist congressman from milwaukee proposed something he called old age insurance. and people laughed at him. he didn't get a single vote in congress for this thing called old age insurance. and 20 years later under the new deal -- 25 years later under the new deal we got social security.
>> and a lot of people suffered in the meantime. i mean, it's hard to ask suffering people to be patient. >> the people in richmond, california are suffering and they're not being patient. they are fighting back against wall street. they are taking their own lives into their own hands. and that's happening all over the country. it's not -- you don't see this in "the new york times" every day. you don't see this in "the wall street journal" or in "the washington post." you see snippets of it, but you see the tea party every day, right, they have a great publicity machine. and jim demint and other -- of their leaders are very good at getting publicity. but the everyday grassroots work on the ground doesn't give you the sense that there's a movement -- adorning all over the country, burgeoning in every state in the country. because we don't see it every day. >> you know polls show a large majority of americans favor raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. yet president obama called on congress to
raise it from $7.25 an hour only to $9 an hour. do you consider him a progressive? >> i think president obama, a former community organizer, understands that he is a president in a moment of crisis and he's torn between trying to be a moderate and to get things done and to be a progressive and move the country in an entirely different direction. and he's making some gestures about moving in the right direction with as you said the $9 an hour minimum wage. it's not good enough. and just like fdr, you know, said i believe you, i agree with you. but go out and make me do it. obama is a community organizer, right. he should understand better than anyone that he needs people out there protesting not only the protesting against wall street and the right, but protesting some of the moderate democrats that are also obstacles to
change. and i would like to see him encourage activists to be in the streets and protesting. and he did that a little bit a few months ago when he encouraged students on college campuses to get involved in the divestment movement over fossil fuels because he remembers when he was at occidental college -- >> your college. >> his first political act was a speech he gave against apartheid and encouraging my college, occidental college, to divest itself from stocks doing business in south africa. >> 1981. >> -- unfortunately my college didn't listen to barack obama -- >> -- and many of them -- most of them are not listening to bill mckibben and the divestment movement on fossil fuels. >> but many colleges did divest from companies doing business in south africa eventually. and that helped to dismantle the apartheid government and brought us nelson mandela as president and changed that country forever for the better. and i do think that the fossil fuel movement, the movement against global warming that's -- of which this is just one tactic
to divest from these companies that are causing global warming like exxonmobil, that's going to happen. and more and more of us have to learn that history happens when you realize that change is possible. being angry, being upset, being frustrated is not enough. people have to have hope. they have to believe that change is possible. people won't remember this crisis unless they -- unless we see it in the historical context of a moment in american history, a turning point in american history where america's decided, "enough of wall street, enough of the widening gap between the rich and everybody else, enough of this destroying our environment, enough of college students going into huge debt just to get an education and being in debt for the next 30 or 40 years." that's untenable and it's uncivilized and we have to move in a different direction. and americans are fed up. >> can you think of some small victories that progressive have won this year? >> sure. in los angeles -- has the dirtiest port in the
america, the dirt -- it's high rates of asthma among children all around the port. and a coalition of the teamsters union and the sierra club and local community groups forced the port of los angeles to clean up its act, to create a clean trucks program, to clean up the environment and to make it possible for the mostly immigrant truck drivers to improve their health and their working conditions. and now that is spread to ports all over the country. and so, there are tens of thousands of truck drivers and residents who live near these dirty ports that are going to be healthier because of this victory in california. another example of that is you might remember that in 2008, right after obama got elected president, about 300 factory workers in chicago at republic windows and doors were being fired from their jobs arbitrarily and unceremoniously. and most people in that situation would say, "i guess i'm fired.
i better go home and find another job." but the union led by a guy named robles and a young organizer named leah fried said, "we're not going to take this." and they organized the workers to take over the factory just like in the 1930s in flint, michigan and other places. and the owners of the factory eventually sold the business and the workers bought it. and now there's a factory there called new era windows. and it's a worker owned company that's thriving. and that's because the workers stood up. and in a little town south of seattle, washington called seatac, washington where the seattle airport is located, the city council is about to vote on a $15 minimum wage for the people that live in that town and that's mostly -- and that work in that town. and that's mostly going to be people at the seattle airport. now, the seattle airport is not going to move to mexico, it's not going to move to china. and so, they have the seattle airport where they want them. and they're going to have to
raise their wages and $15 an hour isn't even middle class, right. and so, in richmond, california and in seatac, washington and in florida with the dreamers and in north carolina with the moral mondays and all over the country on college campuses there are these victories happening. small colleges are starting to divest from these fossil fuel companies. and so, you know, there are these hopeful signs. and if the media gave more attention to them, americans would realize change is possible. so, it's only because people are ignorant of them, they don't know about them because they're not in the mainstream media that people think that things are hopeless. but they're not hopeless. people are on the ground are making change and they're building a movement that's going to have lasting impact. and we need to spread that message. >> are unions hopeless? because as you know unions have been losing members and political clout for years now. >> well, we would all hope that president obama would've
supported labor law reform. because we have the most -- >> he said he would in the campaign. >> right, we have the most pro-management federal labor laws of any country in the world. and the labor movement has suffered as a result of that. but only a few weeks ago in a suburb -- a rural suburb of atlanta, in dekalb county, 500 sanitation workers signed a contract with the county through the representation of the teamsters union. 500 garbage workers now have a union voice that they didn't have two months ago. and that is a sign that the labor movement, it's not thriving. but there are lots of experiments and initiatives happening all over the country. that one day strike in cities around the country by fast food workers a couple of months ago -- and the growing -- activism among wal-mart workers who are taking on the biggest corporation in the world and saying, "we're not going to take poverty wages anymore," those
things are signs that the labor movement is starting to stand up and be counted and i've been to lots of meetings with labor leaders and labor activists where they realize they've got to change the paradigm, they've got to change the way they do organizing, or else the labor -- >> how so? >> -- movement's going to die. they've got to mobilize young people, they've got to mobilize immigrants. they've got to go into workplaces where they hadn't gone before. they have to spend more of their budgets on grassroots organizing. they have to build alliances with the sierra club and planned parenthood and the civil rights organizations and with community organizations. in richmond, california seiu is a key player, the service employees union, in this battle against wall street. and so, here you have the largest union in the country standing up without wall street on behalf of homeowners in this little small city of richmond, california. and that's a sign that the labor movement recognizes it has to
change the way it operates and save itself from extinction and become the kind of player it needs to be to move the country in a different direction. >> one of the progressive heroes in your book is dr. seuss. how did that happen? >> you know, dr. seuss' real name was theodor geisel. what people don't realize about him was that -- you think of him as a kindly old man who wrote children's books. but in fact he was a progressive and a moralist. and when he became a children's author, many of the themes, the progressive themes that he'd written cartoons about, drawn cartoon about, became prominent in his children's stories. so, if you think about "the butter battle book" which is about the cold war, the stupidity of the arms race between the united states and the soviet union. and "the lorax," that was made into a movie recently, is about how corporate america is destroying the environment and we need people to stand up to them. and then ted cruz was on the senate floor reading "green eggs and ham" on behalf of a
filibuster to stop obama care which hadn't even started yet. and he didn't even realize what is the message of "green eggs and ham?" >> say! i like green eggs and ham! i do! >> it's don't criticize something until you've tried it. the message that dr. seuss is sending in his books to young people is to stand up to arbitrary authority and take back your own life and be a fighter for justice and for your own integrity. and i think that dr. seuss would be very pleased with a lot of the movements we've been talking about today because these are people standing up to arbitrary authority and big power and trying to take the country back just like he argued and wrote about in "yertle the turtle." >> tell me briefly the story of "yertle the turtle." >> dr. seuss wrote "yertle the turtle" about a turtle that wanted to be the empire, he wanted to be the king of all he could see. he wanted to be the most powerful person in the land. and he was living in this little dirty pond.
and he convinced a bunch of turtles to pile on top of each other so that he could be on top, he could have his throne. and the more turtles that piled up on top of each other, the more difficult and suffering was going on underneath, but he was getting to see the whole world and he was feeling very powerful. and then on the bottom, a little turtle named mack said, "it's really bad under here. can you let up a little?" and yertle said, "no." and so, eventually mack, the turtle at the bottom burped intentionally. and the whole pile of turtles came tumbling down. and yertle fell off of his throne into the mud pond. and the turtles looked around, they realized, "he's just like us. he's no more powerful than the rest of us." and that's really what the story's about. it's really -- it was a metaphor for hitler, but it was a broader story about the need for ordinary people to challenge people in power, to realize that people in power are only there because we allow them to be there. in a democracy you can take back
power. >> so, what would yertle the turtle's message be to us today? >> that we can win, that we can topple the wall street titans, we can topple the big corporations, we can change america in a more democratic direction if we're willing to fight back and we're willing to challenge the powers that be and also realize that throughout history there are always moments when it looks like yertle is winning, right. but at the end mack had more power than yertle did because he was able to topple him just by burping. and that really means speaking truth to power, having your voice heard. and americans are beginning to feel like their voices now can be heard. and that's why i'm optimistic, not because i walk -- i get up in the morning with rose colored glasses. because i really do think that we're at this transformational moment in our history. >> peter dreier, thank you very much for being with me. >> thank you, bill. it's been a pleasure.
>> at our website, billmoyers.com, if you want to see citizens taking action, there's an exclusive video on how the impoverished city of chester, pennsylvania, fought back when the last grocery store disappeared and left the town searching for a decent, healthy meal. >> fare & square as far as a supermarket goes it looks just like any other supermarket. as a nonprofit we won't be judged on profitability or return on investment. we're going to be judged on how well we meet the needs of a community and how well we provide a healthier purchasing environment. >> and peter dreier has made a brand new list of some up and coming activists who are leading the grassroots movements for economic, social, and environmental justice. learn about this new generation and let us know who you would
carnegie corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the kohlberg foundation. independent production fund, with support from the partridge foundation, a john and polly guth charitable fund. the clements foundation. park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. the bernard and audre rapoport foundation. the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org. anne gumowitz. the betsy and jesse fink foundation. the hkh foundation. barbara g. fleischman. and by our sole corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing customized individual and group retirement products. that's why we're your retirement company.